Legalethics.com

Lawyers may use .org suffix in domain name.

Peterk — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 02:02:08 +0000

For-profit Arizona law firms may use the .org domain name suffix as long as the website is otherwise not false or misleading. See Arizona Ethics Op. 11-04 (December 2011).

South Carolina Opinion Permits Use of Groupon to Market Legal Services

Peterk — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:53:55 +0000

The use of “daily deal” websites to sell vouchers to be redeemed for discounted legal services does not violate the Rule 5.4(a) prohibition on sharing of legal fees, but the attorney is cautioned that the use of such websites must be in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 and could lead to violations of several other rules if logistical issues are not appropriately addressed. See Ethics Opinion 11-05.

New York Lawyers May Use Groupon to Market Legal Services

Peterk — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:50:42 +0000

A lawyer may market legal services on a “deal of the day” or “group coupon” website
provided that the advertising is not misleading or deceptive and makes clear that no lawyer-client
relationship will be formed until the lawyer can check for conflicts and competence to provide the
services.See Opinion 897 (Dec 13, 2011).

Kentucky Proposes Fee, Regulation of Social Networking Posts

David Hricik — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:44:40 +0000

The article with links to the proposal are here. To avoid getting any Kentucky readers in trouble, please don’t blog about this!

Law firm executive committee responsible for content on firm website (Louisiana)

Peterk — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:13:52 +0000

A recent decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a law firm’s executive committee is legally responsible for misstatements on a law firm’s website.

South Carolina Issues Opinion that Impacts Linked In, Plaxo, Avvo and related services

prfhricik — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:56:58 +0000

The South Carolina bar association addressed a hypothetical webside that listed attorneys without their involvement, and allows “clients” and others to “rate” the attorney. The bar association held that a lawyer could claim his listing in this service, but that all comments made about him were subject to the advertising rules. “[A]ll content in a claimed listing must conform to” the advertising rules, so held the opinion. It also basically says a laywer can’t solicit improper endorsements, and so on.

Frankly, this one baffles me. I can understand why you can’t ask someone to say something about you that you can’t yourself say, because of Rule 8.4, but am I really under an obligation to make sure non-clients comply with the lawyer advertising rules? Stay tuned, but in the meanwhile, you South Carolina lawyers better go read your various listings, I suppose including Face book!

It’s online here. I’ll gladly email you a copy if you email hricik_d@law.mercer.edu

Florida Bar’s Proposal on Lawyer Websites Rejected

Peterk — Sat, 30 May 2009 19:11:56 +0000

The Florida Supreme Court rejected the state bar’s proposed rule amendments on lawyer web site advertising. See In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar - Rule 4-7.6, Computer Accessed Communications (Feb 27, 2009).

Mercer Law School to Host e-Discovery and Ethics Conference

David Hricik — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:39:52 +0000

On November 7, the Law School will host the 9th annual Georgia Symposium on Professionalism and Ethics. The topic for this years symposium is “Ethics and professionalism in the Digital Age.” There will be presentations and panel discussions on e-discovery, the internet and lawyer marketing, and meta-data. The symposium will take place in the Law School Courtroom beginning at 9 a.m. on the 7th. The event is open to the public, and CLE credit will be available. For further information, contact professor Patrick Longan at (478) 301-2639 or longan_p@law.mercer.edu

Jones Day: Linking to Our Site is Trademark Infringement

David Hricik — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:28:50 +0000

There’s an article here. Oh, and here. Oh, and this one.

There’s a webpage, blockshopper.com that tracks who buys what property and for how much in certain upscale neighborhoods. Some Jones Day lawyers bought property in those neighborhoods, and that truthful, factual information was posted on the site, along with truthful factual links to the firm’s website, and truthful, factual links to the individuals’ bios on the firm webpage.

Jones Day filed this complaint for trademark infringement. The sum of the alleged confusing and illegal conduct is using a link to the firm’s website and linking to the two lawyers’ bios who bought houses.

Connecticut revises ethics rules, following many ABA updates; new filing requirement effective July 1, 2007

Peterk — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 03:51:05 +0000

The Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct have been modified and adopt many of recent changes adopted by the ABA. A redline version is available from the Connecticut Superior Court. These revisions become effective on January 1, 2007, except as follows:

Revisions to Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct were effective September 1, 2006
New Sections 2-28A and 2-28B and new subsection (e) of Section 2-27 become effective July 1, 2007

Note that Rule 7.2 (advertising) now requires electronic advertisements to be copied every three months on a compact disk or similar technology and kept for three years.

Importantly, Practice Book Section 2-28A, which takes effect July 1, 2007, requires filing with statewide bar counsel a copy of most advertisements. Section 2-28B provides a procedure for lawyers to request an advance advisory opinion concerning the propriety of an advertisement.See modified rules.